OP-ED: "Why Putin should scare us," by Ralph Peters, USA Today, 17 September 2008, p. 11A.

Good piece, if a bit schizo in its analysis. What I find funny is that you can say all the same things about Bush: clear nationalist, sees America as exceptional and full of global destiny (hence able to create and execute stunning new rules on the fly), pragmatic but also highly religious (Russians who are religious are inevitably, in an Orientalist bias, referred to as "mystics"--and Peters admits here that he's imbibed his Dosteyevsky, probably in a college lit class). I don't really fault Peters' analysis, including his blowing off of Russia's military displays (like heading down to Caracas) as "militarily absurd"--which they are to all but the most naive and therefore excitable Western "experts." I tend to underappreciate Peters' gushy over-estimation of Putin's "brilliance" (he just acts boldly in ways that excite this former intell officer), and note his lack of any mention regarding the economic price Moscow has so far paid over Georgia (mil analysts tend to downplay financial repercussions in general). It's just the conclusion that I find clearly overwrought: Putin is possibly problem #1 for the next prez. In sum, a very traditional analysis of a guy who exploits tradition nicely at home but also indicates he "gets" the current world fairly accurately and takes advantage only where we let him through our choices. No clear analysis of how our strategic interests are actually harmed, but no matter. A quick comparison (favorable) to Osama, but at least he skipped the usual Hitler one. No sense of Russia's poor long-term economic trajectory. But in the end, sensible advice to Europe to "draw clear lines while avoiding drawn guns." Sounds pretty straightforward and easy to me.